Russian Ground Forces: News #3

An while ago people were commenting on Russia using old double barrelled 25mm guns on boats and if they were useful against waterborne drones. I found a little info that many of these guns were used with armour piercing rounds which at 900m/s at 500m would penetrate 30mm of armour that would be more than adequate for such a target even at ranges of 1.5-2km and even further as these drones will be light and without armour.

But these guns and ammo are now pretty old which got me thinking. We have seen the Russians using 57mm S-60 mounted on trucks as a fire support weapon. But we haven't seen the 37mm 61k gun being used yet around 20,000+ were produced and some countries still use them. There must be ammo laying around in the same situation as the 25mm, and 57mm ammo. There was also a double barrelled version of the gun oddly called B-47. We have seen extensive use of Zu-23-2 being used in Ukraine especially blasting at targets in wooded areas. After some further research I found that the Soviets did mount the 61K and B-47 version on BMP-1 chassis and used in Afghanistan it's high elevation being useful in mountainous areas. See pics below. I wonder if we will see any deployed on trucks in Ukraine and use up old ammo laying around in storage it would make sense.





B-47 version

It is hard to say without knowing what they have in storage in terms of guns and spare barrels and parts and of course also ammo.

The main issue will be logistics... adding an extra calibre would not be ideal, though if you are going to be using up guns and barrels from storage and also significant stores of ammo from storage then it might be well worth it.

Essentially you could make them disposable in the sense that you send a single gun to the front line with 2,000 rounds of ammo that are high velocity armour piercing HE rounds that will wear out that barrel when used so replacement barrels are not needed... essentially consuming a resource, though it is a risk because such a unit cannot borrow ammo or parts from neighbouring units... and the soldiers would need to be trained on the ballistics of the round and how to use the gun and how to maintain it in the field.

I rather suspect that perhaps finding existing world wide users of the round and selling stocks of weapons and ammo would be easier and generate a small amount of income.

The 25mm gun was a naval gun and likely taken from naval stocks along with the ammo as that calibre is phased out of use... not a lot of point saving guns and ammo in such calibres if they can be used up, but no point in putting them back into production as existing calibres like 23mm and 30mm can replace them in storage as they are standard now.

I suspect with the new 57mm rounds for the S-60 gun and for the grenade launcher that the variety of rounds developed for them could be expanded based on operational experience with the older calibres... APHEI might be interesting in 57mm calibre...

The 57mm grenade launcher round is rather interesting because it mixes an APFSDS round that probably has the armour penetration of a 37mm or even a 40mm round, but with a HE bomb that would be comparable to the shell fired by a 76.2mm gun at a lower velocity.

I remember a while back Kalashnikov complained that the Russian military wasn't buying AKs, but the Russian military said it had about 17 million AKs in stocks so there was no urgent need for new rifles. I suspect the conflict in Syria and Ukraine has burned through some rifles now, but they wont be running out of those any time soon either I suspect.

I agree and I wasn't suggesting put older ammo into production. But it does seem in this war that Russia has been using up old ammo as mentioned 25mm ammo, 57mm ammo, and those naval rockets, it's far easier using up old stocks rather than trying to pay for disposal, and if it's old customers might be reluctant to buy it. This also saves using the newer ammo for newer systems. Also if for example an old truck mounted with a 61k 37mm gun, and the Russians abandon it for whatever reason then it would be pretty useless to Ukraine as they won't likely have any ammo left as they pretty much used up all it's soviet ammo, and relying on western weapons, and the only ammo the west seems to be able to get hold of in soviet calibre is 122, 152, shells and 122 rockets. It seems Russia has been having a clear out of older systems whilst the west has done the same but also clearing out newer systems as well lol

If it can be used, if it's effective and gets the job done, and it costs U next to nothing and U don't plan to use it in the future then it's perfectly fine to use especially if it's taking out nazi scum.

Agree.

There is no value in storing it if you are never going to use it and in many cases this is a good opportunity to use it.

As long as the ammo is safe and is suitable for the job then why not.

We have seen 57mm guns firing like artillery, and the old ammo with HE warheads is probably not accurate enough for direct fire use to safe ranges but get a half dozen guns and point them all at the same target and use the rate of fire of the old guns with their four round clips and fire off shells.... it is all maths... you know the accuracy performance and the effective radius of the explosive shells and together with the firing range and rate of fire you know each gun should be aimed off the central point of aim by this distance and angle and having them all fire will cover a field the enemy troops might be advancing across with a nice even spread of HE fragmentation material. Troops never advance in tight bunches so single guided high precision shells make no sense, what you need is a machine gun and not a sniper rifle and you deliver a burst of lethal rounds to ensure anything in that field is going to get injured or killed.

Guided rounds to kill 100 men all spaced out so one round wont injure more than two or three men might require 30-40 shots... 30-40 expensive shots because they are guided. Unguided rounds delivered in large volumes... that battery of 6 guns firing four round clips might fire off 10 clips each gun, so that is (10 x 4) x 6 = 240 shells, which can come from stocks of AA gun ammo which should be reasonably accurate... certainly accurate enough for this role.

Other calibre guns from the past can be used too with no new ammo, it is a case of using up what is in storage... ammo and guns.

Once it is used up of course you can use that storage space for newer ammo as it gets produced... it might even be a case that you put these old 37mm guns into older tank models... T-54/55 if they have any left. BDD armour kits improve their armour levels to BMP or rather better levels and the obsolete guns and ammo can be used up... but when that is gone replace the main gun with a 57mm or 37mm gun... a modified mount to allow better elevation and perhaps a turret bustle mount with more ammo storage. The recoil levels means you can reduce the turret ring size and have more space inside the hull near the turret for ammo or maybe move the turret crew to these locations and make the turret unmanned... meaning the extra armour can just be applied to the hull and not worry about a huge heavy turret. It could be protected from drones by simply not having crew and therefore not needing roof hatches... a turret bustle with ammo in a belt instead of clips could be designed to be ejected if it catches fire.

Once the 37mm and old 57mm guns have been used up and the old ammo has been used up you can start using new 57mm guns including that new grenade launcher/ high velocity gun.

Perhaps even fit 37mm guns to robots... as you mention, they wont have ammo for it and the fact that they are not taking Russian positions means they will not get more over time... You can send them into enemy positions to shoot the place up and recover them as you move forward.

Normally you risk soldiers and equipment moving forward to find the enemy firing positions but this robot could have audio sensors to detect where enemy firing positions are and send that information back in real time so they can be targeted with snipers and artillery and of course drones.

The robot is there to make them fire and defend themselves so even if it gets taken out it is doing its job and you can recover it and fix anything damaged and use it in the next attack.

Whomever is in charge of logistics needs good quality up to date information about all the older equipment and ammo stores and its condition and state and should be working with the factories upgrading and modifying and repairing armour that goes back into service/battle.

I seem to think the Russians had a 37mm trench gun in WWI, which is ironic because there was not a huge amount of trench warfare on the Eastern Front in WWI...

According to Wiki it was used to take out fortified machine gun emplacements, but I doubt they will still be around.

Equally the early 37mm aerial gun used in IL-2s and other aircraft were as often used against bombers as ground targets and are likely gone and not kept, while the 37mm gun used in the MiG-15... it was a lower velocity weapon used for a large warhead to take out bombers rather than ground based armour and I rather suspect they don't have enormous stocks of that ammo either.

The 37mm ground based anti aircraft gun was not widely used in the Soviet Union but seems to have been exported to a lot of allies... I suspect the amount of guns they have in storage and the amount of ammo they have instorage is not that substantial as it seems more export oriented as they didn't really use the calibre much themselves on land. At sea they probably had a few guns and a bit of ammo, and they also seem to have upgraded it to 45mm, but I don't think they would have it in massive numbers.

I remember seeing a picture of a T54/55 with the turret removed and a ZPU-4 mounted on it and a armoured shield, I believe it was an Afghanistan Mod, most likely to fire up at mountainous terrain. Would be effective against mud huts, small buildings and soft skin vehicles. When I was in Cambodia they had a T-54/55 chassis that had a 140mm rocket pod on it think it was BM-14 and had a double rack each rack holding 16 rockets so 32 rockets in total a cheap MLRS lol.

Soviets did have large amounts of 85mm, 100mm, 130mm anti air guns and I know many nations after the introduction of Manpads and other missile systems they turned them into improvised artillery and direct fire guns, some where even mounted on trucks, T-54/55, and T-34 chassis Cuba I believe did this as well. The soviets also had a 85mm anti tank gun, the Ukrainians mounted a 100mm anti tank gun on a MT-LB I guess the same could be done with a 85mm anti tank gun and used to blast buildings apart or target light armour. The soviets also had 85mm and 76mm artillery guns, these could easily be mounted on a truck to aid mobility and shoot and scoot tactics. These guns benefit from high rate of fire 20-25 rounds per minute, and range from 13-15km, also anti armour rounds available. The HE content is quite a bit higher than a 82mm mortar bomb, depending on the shell type. And an unknown fact Russia still produces the ammo for the 76mm although a blank firing version for ceremonial purposes, but the shells for both are still in use around the globe. Yet again another calibre to clear out and blasting the enemy outwith direct fire range. (13-15km) These types of systems could be used on less volatile fronts, like Sumy chernihiv Kharkiv border regions to wear down the enemy and destroy equipment. A death is a death, a casualty is a casualty, and a destroyed piece of equipment is a destroyed piece of equipment regardless what does the damage.

If you have put aside stuff you made decades ago to kill and you are in a position where you need to kill some people, then it just makes sense to have a look through what you have in storage to see what might be useful... especially the stuff that is getting close to its use by date, where it will need to be disposed of if you don't use it up soon.

This stuff is all paid for and while it shouldn't cost a lot to keep it ready for use, there is no point in keeping it if you never plan to use it.

Much of it will be keeping it dry and not too hot and every decade or so taking it out and inspecting it to see if it is still OK.

Ammo is normally pretty good as long as it is kept cool and dry... let it get hot and cold and it can sweat and become unstable which is not something you want to hear regarding ammo.

Most explosive ammo has failsafes built in so the rounds are not armed till they are fired. You will want to test them because if they all dud on impact then you might as well destroy them and use the storage space for newer ammo that will work.

Some of the very old stuff should just go to museums, but a lot of the stored stuff will kill just as effectively as brand new stuff... except it is free because it has already been paid for.

The AA gun calibres will tend to be high velocity and therefore also high recoil... putting them in a tank would be problematic simply because of the size of the guns and the size of the ammo, which for AA guns is often one piece.

I would say the best way to use those sorts of guns would be a truck mount like the 2S43 but of course with the 152mm gun replaced by guns of smaller calibres.

This would allow different calibre guns to be easily used as most of the guns wont have the recoil power of the 152mm round, yet the vehicle can be mobile and relatively light. If you have a lot of ammo and guns then you can make trucks cheaper than you can modify tanks for, which will still be expensive to operate.

As a means of delivering HE shells to target a truck like this would be the quickest and cheapest option.

Of course it does depend on how much ammo they have remaining and how many guns they have.

A T-55 based MLRS would be expensive to operate, as such a tracked vehicle would be relatively slow and very high maintenance compared with a grad like truck.

Of course a T-55 based MLRS would have rather good protection for the crew and very good mobility in the field.

Drones of course could attack the rockets in the launch tubes and easily defeat the vehicle even if the crew survived.

When mobility or protection is important a tracked vehicle makes sense, otherwise a truck would usually be better for MLRS.

The Soviets/Russians have a few 100mm anti tank guns including rifled and smoothbore so options for anti tank use are interesting, but once stocks are used up such modifications become redundant.

The conflict in Syria and other locations including Libya should allow stocks of older ammo to be used up.

With Irans use of large calibre AAA perhaps swapping ammo types with them... 100mm and 130mm AAA rounds for 122mm and 152mm artillery if it is compatible might make sense... or just a donation to an ally.

The Cubans seem to have stuck a lot on to various platforms like a full T-55 turret onto a BTR-60 (see Cuba thread where I posted loads of stuff. various countries have mounted a BMP-1 turret onto a BTR-60

But what is a bit crazy is various factions and countries have mounted BMP-1 turrets and also just the 73mm gun itself. Cuba turned the Grom 73mm gun into a towed anti tank gun. Namibia have mounted the BMP-1 turret onto two Chinese 6x6 wheeled APC and onto a home-grown MRAP. And some crazy factions, like those in Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc have just mounted the guns and turrets onto pick up trucks which I think would be extremely top heavy for a pick up. See examples below. (The Cuban 73mm grom towed anti tank gun is the Cuban thread)

Cuban thread
https://www.russiadefence.net/t7274-cuban-revolutionary-armed-forces?highlight=Cuba

Namibian MRAP with Grom 73mm gun


Improvised towed Grom 73mm gun


Improvised Grom 73mm gun on mount.

The BTR-90 was essentially a BTR-82 improved body enlarged and with a BMP-3 turret fitted.

And there have been other interesting experiments with the BTR where gun turrets have been fitted including 85mm turrets and even 125mm Sprut turrets...

But really for Russia using older vehicles is going to make less sense as they are withdrawn.

Vehicles like the Hosta make sense because they have enormous numbers of 2S1 vehicles and parts and support equipment so putting a 120mm gun/mortar on the chassis makes sense in terms of eliminating a calibre (122mm) while keeping a capacity... the 120mm shell reaches about 13km which is comparable to the 122mm guns 15km range.

Plus it can use mortar shells as well... plus the guided 120mm munitions and 122mm guided munitions too.

But what is a bit crazy is various factions and countries have mounted BMP-1 turrets and also just the 73mm gun itself. Cuba turned the Grom 73mm gun into a towed anti tank gun. Namibia have mounted the BMP-1 turret onto two Chinese 6x6 wheeled APC and onto a home-grown MRAP. And some crazy factions, like those in Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc have just mounted the guns and turrets onto pick up trucks which I think would be extremely top heavy for a pick up. See examples below. (The Cuban 73mm grom towed anti tank gun is the Cuban thread)

The SPG-9 is a potent weapon and its reduced weight because it is a recoilless weapon instead of a gun. You get lighter cheaper ammo if you use it in the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 and against many targets it is still a potent weapon.

With a gun mount then the back blast of the SPG-9 becomes less desirable and its lighter weight and low recoil don't matter, while the 73mm guns improved performance makes it a better weapon.

Again it really depends on production capacity and ammo left over... I would say Russia would do best to sell off its 73mm guns, but as they are upgrading their SPG-9s maybe ammo adaptations would allow them to use old stock 73mm ammo in the upgraded recoilless rifles... the HE models don't need extreme accuracy against area targets...

The existing rocket ammo could be upgraded with ramjet powered missiles that have a flatter flight trajectory and shorter time to target reducing the effects of gravity and sidewinds leading to higher kinetic speeds and improved performance too.

73mm is a good calibre because it makes the ammo and weapon rather light and mobile, but if you want improved ramjet performance you could go for larger calibres easily enough.

Few modern forces will operate with no vehicles at all... even helicopter delivered forces can have vehicles to improve the volume of equipment and weapons they can take with them.

Not always worth modernizing older equipment. You have to weight after all the safety of the crew in an older, less protected vehicle in comparison with that of a new model

Some things are possible to convert into civilian equipment

For example last year I noticed a captured Ukrainian BTR-4 outside a fire station I was passing by. Looks it was handed over there for conversion into something the firefighters could use
I think I even took a few photos. Will see if I can dig them up. It wasn't in the process of modification then as yet though.

This is true, but sometimes it is not so important.

Using older BTR vehicles for roles you might otherwise use a truck is actually an improvement in protection in comparison to what they would otherwise have.

Of course if the old BTR you use is unreliable then it might not be that good a solution.

The irony tends to be that previous generation systems and vehicles and weapons and ammo is generally produced in rather much larger volumes than the newer heavier better armoured and better equipped new stuff that replaced it.

This is the curse for HATO because they forgot that you consume ammo and weapons and vehicles during a real conflict and so keeping the older stuff is important because often with a few upgrades the older stuff can be more useful than some of the newer stuff.

I mean if the latest western tank can be destroyed by drones and ATGM hits anywhere from any angle then why is a previous generation tank probably with the same gun but much weaker armour which also makes them much lighter and more mobile a bad choice?

With cage armour and ERA some older vehicles are actually performing quite well... even more so if you can modify them to operate under remote control.

Of course with Russian autoloaders in most of their tanks and in their most common T-72s means they can easily modify their tanks to operate by remote control and send them into enemy positions and not be too upset if they lose it. Other friendly forces can monitor its advance and suppress enemy fire that tries to deal with the vehicle, the attacks revealing defensive fire positions so you can deal to them.

Of course some ammo will be unsafe or unsuitable and should be disposed of... the Russian Army has a lot of experience at recycling their ammo and recovering materials and components... the Kalashnikov factories that make small arms ammo can be reversed to process small arms ammo to recover materials to make new ammo and dispose of old propellant (as fertiliser AFAIK).

They spent a while and money a few years back creating new ammo storage depots and moving ammo from huge numbers of sites to these depots for safe storage so hopefully most of it is now stored properly and the unsafe ammo has been disposed of.


The old obsolete ammo could have been used up in the conflict in Syria and other conflicts around the world and of course now in the Ukraine where enormous amounts of ammo are being consumed every day and week.

Combining new technology with old technology there are few limits really on what you can do.

Issues with lack of armour don't matter so much if the vehicle is made into a robot so even if enemy weapons penetrate it you can fill the compartment with foam and nitrogen so fires don't last long. Automate the weapons so they can fire their full ammo storage load without needing human interference.

How about a modified APS designed to direct fragments sideways at nearby troops instead of incoming weapons so you drive up to enemy troop positions and start setting off what looked like ERA blocks but are actually MON-50 mines...

It would be stupid to do with a T-14 but with a T-54... or a BTR-50...

Of course as mentioned too some bits can be sold to private citizens... the BTRs use common truck engines and of course being a wheeled vehicle it is easier to get onto a road. Of course its amphibious capacity makes it an interesting RV option too... replace the metal armour with some sort of heavy resin/plastic shell with air pockets that is super light but still quite strong to retain its amphibious performance... or even enhance it.

flamming_python wrote:Not always worth modernizing older equipment. You have to weight after all the safety of the crew in an older, less protected vehicle in comparison with that of a new model

Some things are possible to convert into civilian equipment

For example last year I noticed a captured Ukrainian BTR-4 outside a fire station I was passing by. Looks it was handed over there for conversion into something the firefighters could use
I think I even took a few photos. Will see if I can dig them up. It wasn't in the process of modification then as yet though.

Of course but a soft skin vehicles Vs a BTR-70 for example is a no nonsense win for the crew being in a armoured APC. Unless like we had was not fit for purpose as we had a Saxon which wasn't actually designed for fighting or rough ground as it was designed for the streets of Northern Ireland. But am sure you get my point. Vietnam converted a BTR-152 which doesn't really have any real combat worth but they turned one into an ambulance to protect the crew from rifle fire, and this was perfectly fine. Indonesia converted it's BTR-40 into a sort of urban patrol vehicle with an enclosed turret armed with 7.62mm or 12.7mm gun, this in turn protected the gunner from small arms fire while previously they would be exposed. Yet again a perfectly decent cheap mod for a fit for purpose vehicles. If I remember correctly Egypt converted a lot of BRDM-1 into border patrol vehicles yet again fine for that and prior to that they used some as a sorted of armoured destroyer armed with AT-2 I think it carried 5-6 missiles. As the short range of these missiles were no good for helicopters anymore but decent enough for a recce type vehicle sniping light armour. And BTR-50 with their large internal space had various upgrades over the years such as command vehicles and ambulances although the latter required some clever cut and welding. But achieved the desired result. And T-34 chassis turned into a platform for carrying D-30 by the Syrians, the chassis might not be fast, but capable for rough terrain, can carry the weight of the D-30 no issues and would offer some amount of protection and it would never be direct on the battlefield as it would have been while a tank, although saying that a T-34-85 was used in Serbia against British troops in s bunker the 85mm gun caused serious damage to the bunker injuring troops.

The way I see it the chassis seems to always have use of some sort as it's common to see a chassis of some vehicle being used and The turret removed. The turrets were most often used on ships for coastguard vessels or patrol boats which is fine. The soviets have used T-34-85, T-54/55 turrets, and PT-76 turrets in boats, the shmel patrol boat uses the PT-76 turrets, and various coastguard boats use the T-54/55 turrets and past vessels used the T-34-85 turret. All would blast a nice hole in any ship.

Regarding potential civilian use MTLBs and their variations are widely used as arctic tractors for use in snow and soft mud environments and are very popular in that role by civilian and military alike.

They are popular BMP replacements in deep snow or deep mud where other vehicles can't venture because of their narrow tracks or their excessive weight.

Of course old material in storage makes some sense but eventually a lot of it will be used up and newer stuff would need to be used instead.

Most of the time if the Russian military has a requirement for something they will likely base it on one of the new vehicle families.

One of the problems with the old vehicle families was that they were upgraded.

Looking at a modern tank or motor rifle division there might be 5 or more vehicles based on BMP chassis.

Now on the face of it that might sound good, but the problem is that the BMP troop transport might be a BMP-3, but the other BMPs in the unit might be based on the BMP-2 or even BMP-1, and those three vehicles do not share engine types or transmission types or even wheel and track types so essentially they are different vehicles.

Eventually the in service vehicles in an armoured unit will be of the same type using the same engines and same transmissions and same wheels and tracks if any, but also same APUs and same comms system and fully standardised equipment and electronics and sensors.

From the rehearsal.

Rehearsal for the parade in Moscow or the parade in Paris...

The Kalashnikov Concern has dispatched a substantial shipment of 9M333 anti-aircraft guided missiles to the armed forces under the 2024 state defense order. These missiles are specifically designed for the Strela-10M3 air defense system.

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2024/05/24/kalashnikov-sent-9m333-anti-aircraft-guided-missiles-to-the-army/

turning vans into armored vehicles.

https://rostec.ru/news/nashkrash-8-odeyalo-ot-pul-i-oskolkov/

#НашКраш-8: Bullet and Shrapnel Blanket

In the new issue of the project, the #НашКраш got the legendary "loaf" - an all-wheel drive minibus of the UAZ brand, which is very popular in the NVO zone. It was shot at with a pistol, grenades exploded next to it and right on it. But still, Rostec is not yet engaged in the production of minibuses, and the main characters were modern protective materials produced by the Research Institute of Steel of the Kalashnikov Concern. Combined armor panel.

The host of the program, military journalist Alexei Egorov, talked about how this protection is arranged and about the test results with Dmitry Chumachenko, head of the department of structural protection schemes of the steel research institute.


− The question is immediately uncomfortable: how to explain this through penetration?

− Yes, this is a through penetration, but you need to understand that it hit the seam – the weakest point. Each product has its own weaknesses. Each vest has stitches, each panel has areas for joining the main materials. Accordingly, this is a weak point. Not a guaranteed case, but, nevertheless, there is a breakout. About 109 fragments. We calculated and estimated that this is less than one percent.

− Did one out of 109 pass?

− Yes.


− Let's turn the blanket over so you can see the other side. Look carefully, another through penetration and another one. We have already studied this blanket. In total, there were three through penetrations.

− That's right, but you have to understand that it was after the second impact of a grenade.

− That is, the material has already lost its integrity?

− After one high-explosive fragmentation impact on the product, it loses its original properties. It should be noted that the entire area is clean. We noted only one fragment, which was pierced by the UAZ itself. Even the glass is all intact. Not a wave, nothing beat him. That is, the entire area that we defended with blankets, it is intact. We believe that the blanket has fulfilled its functions one hundred percent.

"That is, here, in the protection, there are through holes, and we see some dents on the car.

− The main purpose is the staff, the users are safe. This is the purpose of our product.

− Initially, why did you design these blankets?

− Initially, it was developed to protect personnel, users, that is, manpower from shrapnel. Curtaining doorways, window openings, sheltering personnel.

2_2.jpg
− Size?

− A meter wide and two meters long. The weight of the product is 11 kg.

− Is it a lot or a little for this level of protection?

− It's up to the users to judge, but I think that the mass is small. To protect the entire car, you need about six pieces, that is, we add about 66 kg, which is insignificant for the carrying capacity of the "loaf" - plus one person.

− As far as I understand, this is similar to the armor protection that is now put inside armored cars, inside a tank?

− True, but the composition of this product is completely different, it is patented and differs from what is installed on armored vehicles. This is very important.

"It's a blanket in its purest form. Are there any hard elements there?

− No, absolutely. That is, it is flexible. There are no problems to fold it, roll it up and put it away.

3_3.jpg
− Open the blanket that has survived the high-explosive impact. How can we comment on this?

− Again, it must be understood that there was an impact of a shock wave here. It is very destructive. That is, the grenade was lying on the product itself. The purpose of the blanket is to protect against shrapnel, but not to protect against the high-explosive effects of a grenade. Accordingly, the structure broke through, we saw it all ourselves.

− When I talked about it in the video, I said that it was akin to a powerful sledgehammer that flew from above. How correct is this comparison?

"A very powerful sledgehammer, and the roof of the car acted as an anvil. With the interaction of the shock wave and the roof as a rigid foundation, the main structure was ruptured. If there had been a distance between the blanket and the roof, there would have been much less epicenter of the explosion.

− If the distance was 5-10 cm, would it already protect you?

− It would have been better. Because the main purpose of flexible structures is to stretch in the process of the impact of a fragment.

"Let's turn the blanket over, and we see...

− Two small penetrations from the impact of the shock wave. That is, it is the integrity of the structure that has been violated, but there is no hole as such.

− As far as I understand, this is already on the market?

− Yes, it is sold to anyone.

5_5.jpg
− Basically, who takes it?

− They are taken mainly by soldiers to protect equipment, the wounded, for transportation in such "UAZs". They are also taken for hanging dugouts.

− I heard the following story that armored vehicles with ordinary wheels are also simply screwed on self-tapping screws.

− Exactly, yes. There was such a case, they took these blankets from us to cover the wheels. Because at the moment of exposure to shrapnel, the wheels are punctured, and the equipment cannot leave the battlefield.

− Is it a protection class?

"This is an anti-fragmentation blanket, but the protection class, as we have seen, is Br1.

"And now we are going to the product that has a protection class?..

− Br3.

"We see that we grabbed five bullets from Yarygin's pistol. Predictable result?

− Yes. Quite expected. This was the calculation.

– The panel weighing 28 kg withstood an F-1 grenade located at a distance of 60 cm.

− From armored steel, about 60 kg, taking into account the mount, would weigh. That is, we win twice in mass.

− What is the secret?

− Here is a combination of several materials. The main layer is light alloy metal, and the sublayer is made of UHMPH, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.

− And this is also on the open market?

− Yes.

8.jpg
− I need to explain another important point to the audience. When we did the experiment, you proudly said that you were holding an F-1 and holding a pistol quite calmly. Although a pistol has a more powerful bullet, the blow, as many people think, is stronger. But really?

− In fact, the speed of a pistol bullet is much lower than the speed of fragments. And again, it must be understood that the fragments are sharply conical, and their penetrating effect is much higher.

− In numbers, at a distance of half a meter, as we had, the speed of the fragments?

"Approximately about 730 m/s, and the bullet has about 400 m/s.

− Learning to stop fragments is much cooler?

− Yes, it is much cooler and even much more difficult. Because it is much more difficult to catch fragments and leave a whole structure than to catch a bullet, and the structure will be broken.

− So you mean that if there was an armor plate in this place, it could simply crack?

− Exactly, yes. That is, it could crumble, crack, burst. That is, the integrity would definitely be violated.

− Have you tried to mount this panel on the roof?

− No, we did not have such experience. We did not try it on the roof. But, I want to note, we had an experience when we booked a UAZ. There was a slightly different stove. We made one product and sent it as part of a donation to the fighters for the NWO.

− I want to explain to the audience what the coolness of our video is. This is an absolute premiere. That is, in addition to the fact that we are now filming this for the first time, as I understand it, the full cycle of tests is now taking place right before our eyes?

− That's right. Today we are testing it for the first time, that is, it was developed relatively recently, maybe a few months ago.

− Does anyone in Russia make such panels with such protection in such weight?

− We have no analogues like this.

Not sure where to put this.

Ukrainian channels report that the Russian Armed Forces have begun to use a variety of balloons to organize radio communications

According to their data, the heights of the balloons range from 500 to 3000 meters, and the distance from the front line is 20-50 kilometers. - ISZ reports

About time. Such platforms provide a stable view of the battlefield and can be fitted with optics and other sensors to detect targets, but also communications systems to relay signals and detect and track the use of signals by the enemy.

Having such a balloon would allow digital datalinks to be more widely used and effectively used as some are direct line of sight systems that benefit from altitude.

90-100km back from the front line as shown in the diagram should allow low risk, but it is still not ideal.

Having numbers of lighter fighter aircraft with modern AESA radar and EO targeting pods to find air and ground targets over both sides of the front line while flying 20-30km inside friendly air space would give detailed information about enemy positions and traffic and enable ground commanders to find enemy positions and where they store ammo and weapons and vehicles so they can be engaged.